I dunno, barring the CPU and GPU options they're rather good for gaming. They're quiet, very fast booting (at least into OSX), amazing displays, compact for LAN parties but with more juice than a laptop.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steam = Successful
- Thread starter Sambo110
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dunno, barring the CPU and GPU options they're rather good for gaming. They're quiet, very fast booting (at least into OSX), amazing displays, compact for LAN parties but with more juice than a laptop.
I would never buy a Mac just for gaming, and I would never get a Dell, but if you can barely play a *Blizzard* game, there's a problem. The fact is, to play SC2 the way it was meant to be played, you need a mid/high-end iMac. Portal has problems, and it's a three-year old game!
Apple needs to stop being skimpy on graphics cards.
That's a bunch of garbage. I know someone who payed 3 grand for a Dell computer and they told her that Intel's integrated graphics was great for gaming. Apple GPU's are by no means high-end, but they also aren't low-end. Oh and you don't have to buy a GTX 285 to get a 1GB card, I just used it as an example, you can easily flash cards like the 4890 for the Mac Pro with 1GB of VRAM for cheap.
Once again, if 512MB is pointless, imagine how pointless 1GB would be. Please do some research.
http://barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
That BareFeats link is testing older games. I would be very interested in a similar test looking at newer ones. The tooltips in the Starcraft II options indicate that 512 MB of VRAM is recommended for high, and 1 GB for ultra, which you can't get without flashing a Mac Pro's card.
But regardless of VRAM, the fact remains that Apple's graphics are weak compared to the competition. They don't *offer* high-end cards, even if you want them. That is a problem.
And I don't consider "flashing" cards a solution. Apple should provide the solution, and you can't flash anything in an iMac or laptop.
All I am saying is that it would be nice to be able to play SC2 on ultra without having to pay $3000+ on a Mac Pro, and no Mac beyond Apple's low-end laptops should have 256 MB of VRAM. In SC2, you are automatically stuck with low/medium settings with that much.
And Blizzard is usually very light on their system requirements. I shudder to think what Portal 2 is going to be like this fall.
But regardless of VRAM, the fact remains that Apple's graphics are weak compared to the competition. They don't *offer* high-end cards, even if you want them. That is a problem.
And I don't consider "flashing" cards a solution. Apple should provide the solution, and you can't flash anything in an iMac or laptop.
All I am saying is that it would be nice to be able to play SC2 on ultra without having to pay $3000+ on a Mac Pro, and no Mac beyond Apple's low-end laptops should have 256 MB of VRAM. In SC2, you are automatically stuck with low/medium settings with that much.
And Blizzard is usually very light on their system requirements. I shudder to think what Portal 2 is going to be like this fall.
Wrong. The card simply isn't fast enough to handle the VRAM. The same goes for the low end 5XXX series cards. They are just getting cheated out by paying more for VRAM that provides no performance.
Apple offers the best possible card they can in the iMac due to space constraints. The mobility 5850 is the same performance as the mobility 4850.
That's a bunch of crap, the only reason why SC2 has poor performance is because OSX's drivers suck ass. On Windows those cards can run SC2 perfectly fine on medium-high settings.
You shudder to think what Portal 2 is going to be this fall? Because we all know the 6 year old Source engine is soooo demanding.
The problem is Apple's drivers. Not the GPU's.
You shudder to think what Portal 2 is going to be this fall? Because we all know the 6 year old Source engine is soooo demanding.
Have you played Portal 1 on OS X yet? It IS demanding, because, as you say, of OS X's crappy drivers. HL2 will probably perform even worse. Apple's OpenGL drivers will never reach the speed of DirectX, so it would be great if Apple would use better graphics cards to compensate. Make the iMac a little bit thicker, who cares.
And why is the Nvidia 330M the best card you can get in an Apple laptop?? It would be nice to see something better, like the ATI Mobility Radeon 5650.
Yes, I have. I've also played it on Windows on the same machine and the FPS is not even even comparable. Everyone with a 9400M can play in Windows with Portal without ANY hiccups. Apple's OpenGL drivers will never reach the speed of DirectX? Apple doesn't make OpenGL, they get the code from the Khronos group and decide to implement the newer version whenever they please. The problem is with the graphics drivers that are outdated, they can be easily updated in a software update much like OpenGL can. You seem to have no grasp on how things work, but you are complaining like you do.Have you played Portal 1 on OS X yet? It IS demanding, because, as you say, of OS X's crappy drivers. HL2 will probably perform even worse. Apple's OpenGL drivers will never reach the speed of DirectX, so it would be great if Apple would use better graphics cards to compensate. Make the iMac a little bit thicker, who cares.
Oh and find me an all-in-one with a better GPU than the iMac. I'd love to see it. Making the iMac thicker doesn't solve the problem. The heatsinks aren't large enough. It's amazing they could even fit a desktop processor in there.
Why is the best card a 330M? I don't know, I don't call the shots at Apple. But the card is capable of running Left 4 Dead at 60 FPS and upwards in Windows, so I don't see the problem. Once again, the problem is the drivers in OSX that Apple can easily update in a software update.
I have a grasp of all of that.
10.6.4 is supposed to have some graphics improvements, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm certainly not holding my breath. If there are any, they will probably be very minor.The problem is Apple is *always* painfully slow with their OpenGL support, so yes, it will be always behind DirectX. OS X doesn't fully support OpenGL 3.1 yet, (or even 3.0) which came out last March. Who knows when OpenGL 4 will be fully implemented. 10.8?
Perhaps with SC2 and Valve's games being released this summer, that will cause apple to start caring about their OpenGL performance. But again, I am not holding my breath. Have we *ever* seen Apple release a software update that has significantly increased OpenGL performance?
I would like to see better graphics options in Apple's computers because, looking at it historically, their graphics support in OS X leaves a lot to be desired.
I have a grasp of all of that.
The problem is Apple is *always* painfully slow with their OpenGL support, so yes, it will be always behind DirectX. OS X doesn't fully support OpenGL 3.1 yet, (or even 3.0) which came out last March. Who knows when OpenGL 4 will be fully implemented. 10.8?
Perhaps with SC2 and Valve's games being released this summer, that will cause apple to start caring about their OpenGL performance. But again, I am not holding my breath. Have we *ever* seen Apple release a software update that has significantly increased OpenGL performance?
A while ago your problem was the graphics cards, now it's a problem with the drivers because I've explained it to you. When was the last time we saw OpenGL performance? 10.6.3, maybe you've heard of it.
RBarris (developer at Valve) has stated there's some major improvements being made in 10.6.4, if you don't want to believe him, then be my guest.
Apple has only been slow on drivers because they've had no incentive to improve on them until Valve came around. Now that Valve is here, I'm expecting better drivers from Apple.
You don't think it's a coincidence that Apple just NOW starting improving their OpenGL support?
My problem with the graphics cards was a) you can get better deals with graphics cards on the PC side and b) Apple drivers suck, so it's more important that their graphics cards are better. You didn't "explain it to me," I knew that.
The 10.6.3 update wasn't "significant." Yes, there were improvements, but I didn't notice much of a difference. And somebody posted on the SC2 forums that the 10.6.4 beta didn't help with SC2.
Maybe I am just being cynical, but I don't ever expect OS X graphics performance to catch up to Windows.
The 10.6.3 update wasn't "significant." Yes, there were improvements, but I didn't notice much of a difference. And somebody posted on the SC2 forums that the 10.6.4 beta didn't help with SC2.
Maybe I am just being cynical, but I don't ever expect OS X graphics performance to catch up to Windows.
Here we go, the age old debate of being able to get PC's for less money. So if you could've gotten a cheaper PC then why did you buy that PowerBook of yours?
You want better drivers? Well Apple is improving them. You want better graphics card? Go buy a PC and get off of an Apple related forum.
I think I trust a developer at Valve more than some random person at a SC2 forum.
Good, go buy an "amazing" Dell laptop for a couple of more frames in gaming in Left 4 Dead that won't be noticeable because the refresh rate of your monitor will be 60Hz.
I don't want a PC. I don't want Windows. Why can't I have a better graphics card *and* OS X? It's like Apple *wants* us to violate their EULA and build Hackintoshes. If Apple ever released Mid-range towers with high-end graphics options I'd be all over that.
I did see Rbarris' comment somewhere on here that Apple was rolling in a FPS fix that was a "doozy." It's just that Apple has always been very dismissive about games on the Mac, but maybe that will change. I would *love* it if they took it just as seriously as they take gaming on the iPhone.
Why can't you have this and why can't you have that? Gee, I wonder.
The fact is, the cards they are using now are perfectly capable of running these games. Apple doesn't offer a single machine with only Intel integrated graphics, the same can't be said about PC's.
The last time Apple tried to place a mid-tower in between the iMac and the Mac Pro it was a complete failure at retail. (G4 Cube)
Apple's been dismissive because gaming on the Mac served no purpose previously. There were a couple of ports here and there, but now is when things get serious.
The Cube was way too expensive. It was also not expandable, which is the main attraction with a mid-range tower. It was an iMac without the screen, for the price of a high-end iMac. I think a tower with a few PCI slots would sell really well. iMac specs but with desktop-level, mid-high range graphics. A "Pro mini," if you will, but expandable.
Apple has in fact had real mid-range towers in the past (you could get a G4/400 for $1499, 300 less than a cube––another reason why it died) It was only until pretty recently, with the Mac Pros, that suddenly expandability cost you $2000+ .
Well, the problem was, Apple was dismissive even when developers expressed interest. See this article, where Gabe Newell is complaining about just that.
Even if the Cube was cheaper I doubt it would have been successful. There was no demand for it.
Oh and you can't expand the Cube? Might want to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4_Cube#Modifications_and_upgrades
Welcome to three years ago. Here's something from 2010:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=247526
Exactly, I agree. It was an iMac with none of the benefits. There was no demand when you could get a more expandable machine for less, or a more compact all-in-one for less.
Compared to the G4/400, it wasn't very expandable.
Yes, I actually watched that today. Very interesting, and encouraging.
But again, when I actually experience less of a FPS drop between OS X and Windows, I will believe Apple's commitment.
It wasn't AS expandable but it was still expandable nonetheless. The majority of my PC gamer friends don't even expand their systems. Their take on it is, why upgrade this one part when I can upgrade the entire thing in 3 years?
Games on OS X are still very immature, patience is virtue.
...saving money? Graphics cards deprecate a lot faster than CPUs do. You can go a long way playing the latest games by only upgrading your GPU.
There's a lot more to a computer than a GPU and a processor. If you enjoy getting nickled and dimed from upgrading a low cost PC, then be my guest. You WILL have to eventually replace the entire machine in due time.
My friend spent $2500 on a new PC just to be able to play Crysis when it came out. If that isn't any indication, I don't know what it is. Games have taken a stop gap on the PC due to consoles. You no longer need to update your GPU every 6 months to get playable performance.
Well, these days you can build a pretty capable gaming PC for 600-700 that will run Crysis just fine on high, and it still one of the most demanding games available. Thanks to consoles, games aren't getting more demanding as fast as they used to, and as long as you stick in a pretty recent processor you should be just fine with only upgrading your GPU for a good amount of time.
Edit: Looks like you just added what I said.
Well, these days you can build a pretty capable gaming PC for 600-700 that will run Crysis just fine on high, and it still one of the most demanding games available. Thanks to consoles, games aren't getting more demanding as fast as they used to, and as long as you stick in a pretty recent processor you should be just fine with only upgrading your GPU for a good amount of time.
Edit: Looks like you just added what I said.
But that's the thing, you don't even have to upgrade the GPU the be able to play these games. Everyone is in a laptop mentality in which you buy the system, and you leave it as is until you are ready to upgrade the entire thing. Maybe you upgrade the RAM when it's really cheap, but that's about it.
But again, if you look at system specs, a demanding game is going to require a much more up-to-date processor than CPU. As long as you have a Core 2 Duo you are pretty much good to go. But with graphics, there is usually a greater need/incentive to upgrade, for DirectX 10/11 and what have you.
I'm guessing you meant to say up-to-date GPU than CPU?
No, not really. Look at WoW, it's essentially using a 6 year old engine, but people still play it because they can. Look at the Source engine, again a 6 year old engine that almost anyone can play. If game engines are advancing this slowly then there is absolutely zero incentive to upgrade your GPU. That's a good thing, it means you have to spend less money.
Yes, I meant GPU. It's late.
WoW and the Source games seem to be the exception than the norm, though. More demanding engines like UT3 or Crysis' are all about incorporating all the new whiz-bang shiny DirectX features, and to enjoy them you need to upgrade.
WoW and the Source games seem to be the exception than the norm, though. More demanding engines like UT3 or Crysis' are all about incorporating all the new whiz-bang shiny DirectX features, and to enjoy them you need to upgrade.
UT3 has fairly low system requirements, and the Crytek engine applies to single company.Yes, I meant GPU. It's late.
WoW and the Source games seem to be the exception than the norm, though. More demanding engines like UT3 or Crysis' are all about incorporating all the new whiz-bang shiny DirectX features, and to enjoy them you need to upgrade.
Basically, when I'm looking at PC gaming, I see it as a backburner to console gaming with the exception of Valve's games, MMO's and RTS games. I play those three categories on a computer and the rest on a console. That's just the way the industry is moving.